Thoughts After the Nikon Mirrorless Launch...

[rrccad]

I was pleasantly surprised that Nikon gave the Z6 the same high-quality EVF as the Z7. Canon would never, ever do such a thing.

EVF quality is the single biggest barrier to acceptance of mirrorless for a large proportion of DSLR users. I don't think Canon will make the mistake of skimping on that.

They won't.

Canon clearly has a better strategy than Nikon regarding mirrorless and it has been an obvious one all along.

it goes even further than you describe. Canon has been working on it's ability to work with mirrorless since the 40D when liveview came out. They are in the 5th generation of DSLR liveview right now, and each one was an improvement on the latter.

 

[J A C S]

Help me out here. I thought existing EF lenses were tied into the autofocus system and adding new mirrorless PDAF approach along with IBIS would be a mis-match? I agree, if the only reason to NOT go with EF lenses is flange distance then that seems kind of stupid. I have to think there is more to the story...

The EF lenses focus fine with dual pixel. However, the best suited motors for on-sensor AF are of a different type and we are likely to see such motors on Canon ML only lenses.

 

[Bassman2003]

Thanks for your replies. How about IBIS?

 

[rrccad]

Thanks for your replies. How about IBIS?

IBIS has no bearing on the mount whether it be EF or a new short registration distance mount.

 

[JackM]

Only if they CANNOT make compact primes to go with a new ML mount. The Nikon 50/1.8 S and 35/1.8 S are huge, so like you say there's no point in making the body a little slimmer. Especially considering the grip protrudes at least as far as a FF mount would.

IF Canon can make compact 50/2, 35/2, 24/2 primes to go with a new ML mount, then by all means, I'll take a new mount.

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

Best rumor I've read was that Canon was going to use an EF-R mount that would directly accept EF lenses, but use a notch to allow the mounting of EF-R lenses where the rear lens element can extend back into the body. Kinda like EF/EF-S.

Lens designers would be able to take advantage of EF-R for the few designs that benefit, and we would have out-of-box native compatibility with our existing lenses. We would lose a bit in terms of adapted glass, but I consider that minor.

This would be the best move by Canon for a mirrorless mount.

I agree completely. This would be the smartest design. This means it is also the unlikeliest. I'm afraid the biggest reason Canon will introduce a new mount is not a photographic one at all. They know people will buy into a new mount and new lenses in droves.

 

[Bassman2003]

Thanks for your replies. How about IBIS?

IBIS has no bearing on the mount whether it be EF or a new short registration distance mount.

But will existing EF lenses be able to take advantage of IBIS + IS on a new ML camera?

 

[rrccad]

Thanks for your replies. How about IBIS?

IBIS has no bearing on the mount whether it be EF or a new short registration distance mount.

But will existing EF lenses be able to take advantage of IBIS + IS on a new ML camera?

entirely depends on canon's implementation in the camera, possibly. who knows. Canon doesnt' even have IBIS at all anywhere.

 

[Rick Knepper]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

We have no reason to believe this. All we really have are comparisons to Sony configurations. A few MMs?

Best rumor I've read was that Canon was going to use an EF-R mount that would directly accept EF lenses,

With this configuration, it would lose any weight/size advantage.

this is patently false.

This is a ridiculous statement given that the whole thread is based on speculation and fantasy and given that none of us knows anything.

but use a notch to allow the mounting of EF-R lenses where the rear lens element can extend back into the body. Kinda like EF/EF-S.

Why would Canon even feel the need to produce EF-R lenses? I'm picturing what they've done with EF-S.

Canon could produce a limited set of EF-R lenses with shorter backfocus for WA/UWA lenses but leave the EF lenses alone where there is no design advantages. In other words, they only have to release a very small number of lenses to take advantage of mirrorless, versus the entire lens catalog.

Sure this is another scenario. There's a whole bunch of scenarios that could play out. But, would an EF mount that could take EF-R lenses lock Canon into this mount for the long haul? Would EF-R lenses designed for this mount work with a future mirrorless camera that did not have the EF mount? Would EF-R lenses be somewhat limited by sharing the EF mount? If you'll read DPR's articles on the Z lenses, there's some benefits to a dedicated mount at least how Nikon is doing it.

 

[Bassman2003]

Thanks for your replies. How about IBIS?

IBIS has no bearing on the mount whether it be EF or a new short registration distance mount.

But will existing EF lenses be able to take advantage of IBIS + IS on a new ML camera?

entirely depends on canon's implementation in the camera, possibly. who knows. Canon doesnt' even have IBIS at all anywhere.

So it sounds like EF lenses are not holding a ML camera back if the camera is designed to use them natively? I would consider a new mirrorless camera without IBIS to be a fail. It is incredibly useful for video.

 

[J A C S]

Thanks for your replies. How about IBIS?

IBIS has no bearing on the mount whether it be EF or a new short registration distance mount.

But will existing EF lenses be able to take advantage of IBIS + IS on a new ML camera?

entirely depends on canon's implementation in the camera, possibly. who knows. Canon doesnt' even have IBIS at all anywhere.

I would consider a new mirrorless camera without IBIS to be a fail. It is incredibly useful for video.

I do not care about video and I am not much of an EVF fan. The only two reasons I might consider an ML Canon would be IBIS plus a possible smaller 35mm or 50mm lenses for travel. No IBIS means no ML for me since I am not rich enough to drop $4k or so for a better travel version of the M plus the 22/2.

 

[rrccad]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

We have no reason to believe this. All we really have are comparisons to Sony configurations. A few MMs?

Best rumor I've read was that Canon was going to use an EF-R mount that would directly accept EF lenses,

With this configuration, it would lose any weight/size advantage.

this is patently false.

This is a ridiculous statement given that the whole thread is based on speculation and fantasy and given that none of us knows anything.

are you talking about your statement, if so I agree.

you are the one that made a distinct statement. I disagree with it. I'm sure we have had this dicussion many of a time, and each time, I come back to the camera body size hugely depends on the ergonomics and not on the lens mount. Canon using the EF mount doesn't change the size weight factor as much as the ergonomic decisions.

If you don't believe me, compare the ergonomics from the SL2 to the 7D Mark II which is a wide range of different size and weight of camera bodies, with the SAME mount, the main takeway is the variation of ergonomics and grip.

so your statement is false. the mount doesn't change the size and weight equation any great degree. Canon could make an EF 5D Mark IV ergonomic mirrorless around the same size and weight regardless of EF mount or another mount.

Canon can make a mirrorless full frame camera smaller than the SL2, with the same cramped and gimped ergonomics of a A7 series camera body if they so choose to do so.

they probably will not, they will have a in between size, probably around the same size as nikon's, and with that, it doesn't matter what the mount is, the camera will still be around the same size and weight. the only difference is a spacer for the EF mount.

 

[Rick Knepper]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

We have no reason to believe this. All we really have are comparisons to Sony configurations. A few MMs?

Best rumor I've read was that Canon was going to use an EF-R mount that would directly accept EF lenses,

With this configuration, it would lose any weight/size advantage.

this is patently false.

This is a ridiculous statement given that the whole thread is based on speculation and fantasy and given that none of us knows anything.

are you talking about your statement, if so I agree.

you are the one that made a distinct statement. I disagree with it.

You said it was patently false which is a falsehood itself since neither of us knows exactly what is coming. If you are merely disagreeing, then I am okay with that.

I'm sure we have had this dicussion many of a time, and each time, I come back to the camera body size hugely depends on the ergonomics and not on the lens mount. Canon using the EF mount doesn't change the size weight factor as much as the ergonomic decisions.

"as much"? So you admit at least some.

If you'll look at the whole conversation, you'll see that I was defending Canon in a devil advocate's role and that I am not one is concerned about the size weight issues although I believe an EF mount will be additive to some degree.

If you don't believe me, compare the ergonomics from the SL2 to the 7D Mark II which is a wide range of different size and weight of camera bodies, with the SAME mount, the main takeway is the variation of ergonomics and grip.

I believe that ergonomics will have an impact too.

Did you see my other questions? Any comments? Size/weight is the least of the concerns IMO for what type of mount is going to used.

 

[graveur]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t

Greetings

Ivan

sure if you ignore ergonomic differences between then and falsey assume that's as small as canon can make a full frame. oh wait, it's not because that's even a 5D Mark IV image, you've chosen the largest full frame camera that canon makes and compared it to cameras that are lacking it's haptic buttons and top plate LCD and claiming similarity.

The 5D IV is not the largest Canon camera they make, it is the 1DX II. In the past they made also larger cameras like the 1Ds and 1D line. There is only one Canon camera, that is FF and smaller than the 5D IV: it is the 6DII. And the 6D II is still bigger then the A7 III / A7r III.

I compared the A7(r)iii with the 5D, because these cameras are positioned against each other in the market. The 5D IV also lacks some ergonomic aspects like the articulating screen for example.

Regarding the ergonomic differences I think that this is a personal thing. I use the 5D IV and had many other Canon FF cameras. Still, I don't think, that the Canon cameras have unparalled ergonomics, that Sony or any other company can't match. Furthermore, if Canon is so good at ergonomics, they will certenly be able to design a mirorless camera with good ergonomics.


----------------

graveur8x

Explore graveur8x’s 1,776 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[rrccad]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

We have no reason to believe this. All we really have are comparisons to Sony configurations. A few MMs?

Best rumor I've read was that Canon was going to use an EF-R mount that would directly accept EF lenses,

With this configuration, it would lose any weight/size advantage.

this is patently false.

This is a ridiculous statement given that the whole thread is based on speculation and fantasy and given that none of us knows anything.

are you talking about your statement, if so I agree.

you are the one that made a distinct statement. I disagree with it.

You said it was patently false which is a falsehood itself since neither of us knows exactly what is coming. If you are merely disagreeing, then I am okay with that.

you made a statement, I stated it was a false statement. it has nothing to do with what canon comes out with, it's your concept that if canon uses an EF mount, then "With this configuration, it would lose any weight/size advantage." which is a false statement because it does not lose any / all weight and size advantage AT ALL.

SIze and weight advantage depends on ergonomics more than it ever would for the actual mount.

 

[photoholiko]

I want to go FF and if I was buying today it would be Sony, however I'm waiting to see what Canon offers and I hope they offer what I want;

Price, no more than $2K

EF compatible AF (with or without adapter)

IBIS

Touch screen

2 card slots

Focus peeking

GPS

4K internal

If it comes with my wish list, I'm in.

 

[rrccad]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t

Greetings

Ivan

sure if you ignore ergonomic differences between then and falsey assume that's as small as canon can make a full frame. oh wait, it's not because that's even a 5D Mark IV image, you've chosen the largest full frame camera that canon makes and compared it to cameras that are lacking it's haptic buttons and top plate LCD and claiming similarity.

The 5D IV is not the largest Canon camera they make, it is the 1DX II. In the past they made also larger cameras like the 1Ds and 1D line. There is only one Canon camera, that is FF and smaller than the 5D IV: it is the 6DII. And the 6D II is still bigger then the A7 III / A7r III.

I should have stated non-1 series grip style, however i though that would have been obvious.

I compared the A7(r)iii with the 5D, because these cameras are positioned against each other in the market. The 5D IV also lacks some ergonomic aspects like the articulating screen for example.

except the A7RIII lacks much more such as the haptic buttons across the top and a top plate LCD which dramatically increase the size of the camera. it also lacks a grip the size of the 5D Mark IV which dramatically changes the size of the camera.

the A7 series is almost down to rebel ergonomics with a joystick added.

and then you also have the fact that the 5D Mark IV has a penta prism, and related housing which increases the size over that of an EVF and it's related optics.

 

[graveur]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t

Greetings

Ivan

the only advantage to a short flange distance is with lenses with a FL wider than 35mm ...and that is moot as the EF mount has a big diameter ...if a wide lens was designed for a MIL EF mount camera with no mirror some of the lens can fit inside the body..leica fit lenses have been doing this for 50 years with up to almost 1/2 the lens in the body for a very compact rig..and canon to a certain amount with the EF-s lenses as the APS-c mirror is not as big obversely this will be a MIL lens only like the EF-s is APS-c only

in your camera size demo you used a 5D ...but when you don't have a mirror ,a mirror motor and gearbox ,no AF module ,no light path to the VF and a EVF takes less space than a pentaprism/mirror canon can fit a FF sensor in say a SL2/200D body so lets comper the most common of lenses the standard zoom



Thumbs up if you would buy a FF SL2

FlANGE DISTANCE CAN HAVE NO BEARING ON CAMERA SIZE

Here you see the grip on the sony sticks out more than the canon flange.. both cameras will fit in the same compartment of a bag



Tiny FF camera with a bigger flange distance than the EF mount

If it is technically possible, why not, use the EF mount. But if using the old mount presents a limitation in designing new lenses for mirrorless or complicates such design, why bother. You will allways be able to use the old EF lenses with an adaptor. Sony choose this way, Nikon too, Olmypus with M43 too... I personally will not have a problem using the mirrorless body with my present EF lenses via adaptor.


----------------

graveur8x

Explore graveur8x’s 1,776 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[rrccad]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t

Greetings

Ivan

the only advantage to a short flange distance is with lenses with a FL wider than 35mm ...and that is moot as the EF mount has a big diameter ...if a wide lens was designed for a MIL EF mount camera with no mirror some of the lens can fit inside the body..leica fit lenses have been doing this for 50 years with up to almost 1/2 the lens in the body for a very compact rig..and canon to a certain amount with the EF-s lenses as the APS-c mirror is not as big obversely this will be a MIL lens only like the EF-s is APS-c only

in your camera size demo you used a 5D ...but when you don't have a mirror ,a mirror motor and gearbox ,no AF module ,no light path to the VF and a EVF takes less space than a pentaprism/mirror canon can fit a FF sensor in say a SL2/200D body so lets comper the most common of lenses the standard zoom



Thumbs up if you would buy a FF SL2

FlANGE DISTANCE CAN HAVE NO BEARING ON CAMERA SIZE

Here you see the grip on the sony sticks out more than the canon flange.. both cameras will fit in the same compartment of a bag



Tiny FF camera with a bigger flange distance than the EF mount

If it is technically possible, why not, use the EF mount. But if using the old mount presents a limitation in designing new lenses for mirrorless or complicates such design, why bother. You will allways be able to use the old EF lenses with an adaptor. Sony choose this way, Nikon too, Olmypus with M43 too... I personally will not have a problem using the mirrorless body with my present EF lenses via adaptor.

none of those companies had the risk that Canon has to lose it's dominance in the marketshare by wholesale switching a mount.

If canon moves from the EF mount, then a customer can choose to use an EF mount adapter with a Sony or an EF mount adapter on a Nikon (can't see this not happening) just as easy as a mount adapter on a Canon.

when canon flipped from the FD mount, they were not in #1 position, they were #3, having been dropped behind minolta and nikon this isn't the same case now.

the business risk to canon is HUGE if they switch mounts, the risk if they don't is that a few people are put out about it and whine and ultimately end up buying the camera and liking it in a year like they do now anyways.

 

[graveur]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t

Greetings

Ivan

sure if you ignore ergonomic differences between then and falsey assume that's as small as canon can make a full frame. oh wait, it's not because that's even a 5D Mark IV image, you've chosen the largest full frame camera that canon makes and compared it to cameras that are lacking it's haptic buttons and top plate LCD and claiming similarity.

The 5D IV is not the largest Canon camera they make, it is the 1DX II. In the past they made also larger cameras like the 1Ds and 1D line. There is only one Canon camera, that is FF and smaller than the 5D IV: it is the 6DII. And the 6D II is still bigger then the A7 III / A7r III.

I should have stated non-1 series grip style, however i though that would have been obvious.

I compared the A7(r)iii with the 5D, because these cameras are positioned against each other in the market. The 5D IV also lacks some ergonomic aspects like the articulating screen for example.

except the A7RIII lacks much more such as the haptic buttons across the top and a top plate LCD which dramatically increase the size of the camera. it also lacks a grip the size of the 5D Mark IV which dramatically changes the size of the camera.

Well, the new Nikon is way smaller then the 5D IV and has bigger grip then the A7 and a top display. So obviously it is possible to do it in a small body.

the A7 series is almost down to rebel ergonomics with a joystick added.

and then you also have the fact that the 5D Mark IV has a penta prism, and related housing which increases the size over that of an EVF and it's related optics.

Obviously a lot of people disagree, with your opinion about the ergonomics: we are both Canon users in the Canon forum talking about Sony. Look at the Sony again and tell me wich buttons from a Canon 5D you miss. The "rate button"? Ergonomics is a personal thing and has a lot to do with familiarity with a body. Maybe the Sony is actually worse in this regard. But for many people the this will not be the case. Canon has to do it better then Sony and design a mirrorless camera with good ergonomics.

 

[rrccad]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t

Greetings

Ivan

sure if you ignore ergonomic differences between then and falsey assume that's as small as canon can make a full frame. oh wait, it's not because that's even a 5D Mark IV image, you've chosen the largest full frame camera that canon makes and compared it to cameras that are lacking it's haptic buttons and top plate LCD and claiming similarity.

The 5D IV is not the largest Canon camera they make, it is the 1DX II. In the past they made also larger cameras like the 1Ds and 1D line. There is only one Canon camera, that is FF and smaller than the 5D IV: it is the 6DII. And the 6D II is still bigger then the A7 III / A7r III.

I should have stated non-1 series grip style, however i though that would have been obvious.

I compared the A7(r)iii with the 5D, because these cameras are positioned against each other in the market. The 5D IV also lacks some ergonomic aspects like the articulating screen for example.

except the A7RIII lacks much more such as the haptic buttons across the top and a top plate LCD which dramatically increase the size of the camera. it also lacks a grip the size of the 5D Mark IV which dramatically changes the size of the camera.

Well, the new Nikon is way smaller then the 5D IV and has bigger grip then the A7 and a top display. So obviously it is possible to do it in a small body.

the A7 series is almost down to rebel ergonomics with a joystick added.

and then you also have the fact that the 5D Mark IV has a penta prism, and related housing which increases the size over that of an EVF and it's related optics.

Obviously a lot of people disagree, with your opinion about the ergonomics: we are both Canon users in the Canon forum talking about Sony. Look at the Sony again and tell me wich buttons from a Canon 5D you miss. The "rate button"?

actually the rate button is hugely popular with working pros.

but this is really an easy mental exercise.

answer this question:

what is stopping canon from making an EF mirrorless full frame camera the size of an SL2 or even smaller than that if you take into account a mirrorless has no AF, AE and penta mirror assembly?